WQ0010382_Staff Report_20190325

^. State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
" Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Environmental Staff Report
Quality
March 25,2019
To: Non-Discharge Unit Application No.: W00010382
Attn: Poonam Giri Facility name: 12910'Kelly Chapel Rd SFR
County: Chatham
From: Joan Schneier
Raleigh Regional Office
Note: This form has been adapted from the non-discharge facility staff report to document the review of both non-
discharge and NPDES permit applications and/or renewals Please complete all sections as they are applicable
I. GENERAL AND SITE VISIT INFORMATION
1. Was a site visit conducted? ® Yes or❑No
a. Date of site visit: 03/19/2019
b. Site visit conducted by: J. Schneier
c. Inspection report attached? ❑Yes or®No
d. Person contacted: Jamie Perkins(tenant)and their contact information: 919)422-9634 ext.
e. Driving directions: Were updated on BIMS.
2. Discharge Point(s):
Latitude: Longitude:
Latitude: Longitude:
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
Classification:
River Basin and Subbasin No.
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses:
H. PROPOSED FACILITIES: NEW APPLICATIONS
1. Facility Classification: (Please attach completed rating sheet to be attached to issued permit)
Proposed flow:
Current permitted flow:
2. Are the new treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal system? ❑ Yes or❑No
If no, explain:
3. Are site conditions(soils, depth to water table, etc)consistent with the submitted reports? ❑ Yes❑No ❑N/A
If no, please explain:
4. Do the plans and site map represent the actual site(property lines,wells, etc.)? ❑ Yes ❑No ❑N/A
If no,please explain:
5. Is the proposed residuals management plan adequate? ❑ Yes❑No ❑N/A
If no,please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 5

6. Are the proposed application rates(e.g., hydraulic,nutrient)acceptable? ❑ Yes ❑No ❑N/A
If no,please explain:
7. Are there any setback conflicts for proposed treatment,storage and disposal sites? ❑ Yes or❑No
If yes, attach a map showing conflict areas.
8. Is the proposed or existing groundwater monitoring program adequate? ❑Yes ❑No ❑N/A
If no, explain and recommend any changes to the groundwater monitoring program:
9. For residuals,will seasonal or other restrictions be required? ❑ Yes ❑No ❑N/A
If yes, attach list of sites with restrictions(Certification B)
Describe the residuals handling and utilization scheme:
10. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters:
11. Pretreatment Program(POTWs only):
M.EXISTING FACILITIES: MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
1. Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge(ORCs)for the facility? ❑ Yes ❑No ®N/A
ORC: Certificate#: Backup ORC: Certificate#:
2. Are the design,maintenance and operation of the treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal
system? ®Yes or❑No
If no, please explain:
Description of existing facilities: Roughly: Septic tank, sand filter pump tank and pump, sand filter,tablet
chlorinator, storage/pump tank, 13,068 sq ft spray area, etc.
Proposed flow:
Current permitted flow: 480 gpd
Explain anything observed during the site visit that needs to be addressed by the permit, or that may be important
for the permit writer to know(i.e.,equipment condition, function, maintenance, a change in facility ownership,
etc.)
3. Are the site conditions(e.g., soils,topography, depth to water table, etc)maintained appropriately and adequately
assimilating the waste? ® Yes or❑No
If no,please explain:
4. Has the site changed in any way that may affect the permit(e.g., drainage added, new wells inside the compliance
boundary, new development, etc.)? ❑Yes or®No
If yes,please explain:
5. Is the residuals management plan adequate? ® Yes or❑No
If no,please explain:
6. Are the existing application rates(e.g., hydraulic,nutrient) still acceptable?®Yes or❑No
If no,please explain:
7. Is the existing groundwater monitoring program adequate? ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A
If no, explain and recommend any changes to the groundwater monitoring program:
8. Are there any setback conflicts for existing treatment, storage and disposal sites? ❑ Yes or®No
If yes, attach a map showing conflict areas. See Comment 3
9. Is the description of the facilities as written in the existing permit correct? ❑ Yes or®No
If no,please explain: See comment 4
10. Were monitoring wells properly constructed and located? ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A
If no,please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 WQ0010382 Page 2 of 5

11. Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? ❑Yes❑No ®N/A
If no, please complete the following ex and table if necessary):
Monitoring Well Latitude Longitude
0 , II
0 ,
11
0 , II 0 , II
0 , II 0 ,
0 , „ 0 ,
11
12. Has a review of all self-monitoring data been conducted (e.g., DMR,NDMR,NDAR, GW)? ❑ Yes or❑No
Please summarize any findings resulting from this review: n/a
Provide input to help the permit writer evaluate any requests for reduced monitoring, if applicable.
13. Are there any permit changes needed in order to address ongoing BIMS violations? ❑ Yes or❑No
If yes, please explain: n/a
14. Check all that apply:
❑No compliance issues ❑ Current enforcement action(s) ❑ Currently under JOC
®Notice(s)of Deficiency ❑ Currently under SOC ❑ Currently under moratorium
Please explain and attach any documents that may help clarify answer/comments(i.e.,NOV,NOD, etc.)
If the facility has had compliance problems during the permit cycle,please explain the status. Has the RO been
working with the Permittee? Is a solution underway or in place?
Have all compliance dates/conditions in the existing permit been satisfied? ❑Yes ❑No®N/A
If no,please explain:
15. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before issuing this permit?
❑Yes®No ❑N/A
If yes, please explain: See comment 5
16. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: Not likely. An onsite pond is 375 ft downhill but infiltration abilities of
the forested site in between are high.
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 WQ0010382 Page 3 of 5

IV. REGIONAL OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Do you foresee any problems with issuance/renewal of this permit? ❑ Yes or®No
If yes,please explain:
2. List any items that you would like the NPDES Unit or Non-Discharge Unit Central Office to obtain through an
additional information request:
Item Reason
n/a
3. List specific permit conditions recommended to be removed from the permit when issued:
Condition Reason
1.8 Rain Sensor The system predates the requirement for a rain sensor and it is not on the
diagram.
4. List specific special conditions or compliance schedules recommended to be included in the permit when issued:
Condition Reason
n/a
5. Recommendation: ❑ Hold, pending receipt and review of additional information by regional office
❑ Hold, pending review of draft permit by regional office
❑ Issue upon receipt of needed additional information
® Issue
❑Deny(Please state reasons: )
6. Signature of report preparers
Signature of regional supervisor:
Date: 71
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 WQ0010382 Page 4 of 5

V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
I- The facility lat-long is correct.
2- The estimated center of the field was GPSed at 35.85195,-78.93079, navigation grade GPS, 1/10 sec,NAD 93.
Also please update BIMS.
3- The two nearest houses are on Rosemont Dr and post-date this permit.#95 was built in 2006, and#281 was built
in 2004, per county GIS, and they were not present in the March 2002 photo on Google Earth.This permit dates
from 1994.They are quite possibly more than 400 ft from the field anyway.
4- Please add to the facility description: "1000 gal"sand filter pump tank, correct storage/pump tank to"2000 gal"
and add"with pump",add"visual and audible high water alarms, add"6 spray heads". (The 2635 gal refers to
total storage in both tanks and can be deleted). If you draw a map,the wetted diameter is 80 feet per head (all are
full circle).
5- RRO will be issuing an NOD for a decapitated(and turned off)spray head but this should not hold up the permit.
6- The house numbered 1275 is reportedly unoccupied(and predates permitting) and the house# 1289 has a county
septic permit for a sand lined trench,both on O'Kelly Chapel Rd.The# 181, evidently refers to Rosemont Dr,
with no structure present.
7- The permit was issued to"Herritage,"LLC,which is the correct spelling. Cameron McRae is the managing
member and lives in the house part time.There is a different"Heritage, LLC" on the state corporation website
(which has since been dissolved).
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 WQ0010382 Page 5 of 5

WQOO1 038z
7��68 8 4
11ss sssaa ,_-,� t 7e1s3
s '
t. .
19833
�rr •* "t�yy
a
a r , ,
cegyy�/
75515 "
78191
' a
730
Y
W i
i- a�''
c v Service Layer Credits: NC911, Chatham
F m `B Nl LD U �,fDSIG
n amar a O4g Durham County, Chatham County GIS
�rle'. c a /V ® 6stceAier of s�ra�Pfeld
6F' D>ee}e.DµilGfc •, .0� ml
0 0.a75 0.055
� 1.�/KF82Dk
kr coK N
Momsville
cy9rnk y' a �� ',- a011�1Na9M CHearj; AR I
lCONA
�°n9 t1' Mrx�e yy
Date: 3/25/2019 �
Time:8:49:09 AM

s
\
1
` 1 •\ "� LY
r
1 ,
I j
Aw
17
ZV
I
, It
j
F I
.4 •1 I _I
y ,v
i� r0 V ;)
(: � AI